Template talk:PD-Soviet

This template is very wrong

I'd like some wider input on this issue, as the discussion over at the English Wikipedia seems to have stalled. The situation is rather complicated. I think it has been established by now beyond reasonable doubt that the rationale "the USSR wasn't member in international coypright treaties before 1973 and therefore Soviet works published earlier are in the public domain outside Russia" is wrong. I'll give a short breakdown here; for the gory details please see the discussions at Template talk:PD-USSR, including the linked discussions. A summary in German is available at my talk page at en:.

1. The Soviet Union joined the Universal Copyright Convention on May 27, 1973. The UCC very clearly states in its paragraph VII that it applied to all works that were still copyrighted. Hence all Soviet works that were still copyrighted in the USSR in 1973 were internationally protected, even if they were published earlier. Before 1973, the Soviet Union had in general a copyright term of 15 years p.m.a, for UCC compliance, this was then extended to 25 years p.m.a. See UCC (1952 text), UCC (1971 text). See also the following expert opinions: Janice T. Pilch, Russian, East European, and Eurasian Center of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Michael Newcity, Duke School of Law, Liapin & Paliashvili, Russian-Ukrainian Legal Group (MS Word document). They all agree that the pre-1973 reasoning is wrong.

   Furthermore, Russia joined the Berne Convention on May 13, 1995. Since 1993, Russia had had a copyright law that placed Soviet/Russian works published after 1943 (or 1939 for veterans of WWII) or where the author died later under copyright. (See point 3 below for the details.) The Berne Convention unambiguously applies to all works copyrighted in the country of origin (Berne Convention, §18), and thus many pre-1973 Soviet/Russian works became copyrighted in 1995 in other members of the Berne Convention. The U.S. had joined the Berne Convention on March 1, 1989, and by the TRIPS agreement also explicitly restored copyright on works previously not copyrighted due to technical factors such as no copyright notice or no treaty with the country of origin. (See point 6 below.) The Berne convention also explicitly supersedes the UCC (UCC, article XVII, and the "appendix declaration"). Thus a "pre-1973" rule on Soviet works outside Russia is invalid at least since 1995/1996, in the U.S. and also in other members of the Berne Convention.

   Forgot the source for this: Pilch, J. T.: Understanding Copyright Law for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Materials, Slavic & East European Information Resources (SEEIR) Vol 4(1), 2003, pp. 75 – 101. ISSN 1522-8886. Lupo 18:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

2. What is true, however, is the following: foreign works published before 1973 were not copyrighted within the USSR; the Soviet copyright law explicitly excluded such works. When Russia joined the Berne Convention on May 13, 1995, they made a declaration saying that they would not apply the Berne Convention to works already uncopyrighted ("Accession by the Russian Federation", Official notification by the WIPO), and thus pre-1973 foreign works remained uncopyrighted in Russia even though they should have become copyrighted under the terms of the Berne Convention. Naturally, that created some tension and resulted in lots of criticism by western countries. (See e.g. Fialkovsky.) Russia changed that situation in 2004 with a law that (a) extended the copyright term from 50 to 70 years p.m.a and (b) also made foreign works published before 1973 eligible to copyright in Russia. See the Russian law of July 28, 2004 (in Russian). In particular, the modifications to article 5 are important here: they explicitly state that foreign works are covered by copyright according to international treaties, unless already passed into the public domain in the country of origin, and that the law applicable to such works was the new 2004 version of the Russian copyright law. Since then, there is no "pre-1973" rule even in Russia, and not even only foreign works. However, note that this whole issue is about the copyright of foreign works within the USSR or Russia, not about the copyright on Soviet works, either in the USSR or in Russia or elsewhere.
3. Russia is not the Soviet Union. That's an important point to remember, because it has a dramatic effect on what Soviet works may be considered PD outside of the former USSR. For Russia itself, the situation is as follows: In 1993, Russia adopted a new copyright law. That law stipulated a copyright term of 50 years p.m.a and was retroactive for 50 years. (See the expert opinions cited above, and also the Russian copyright law of 1993 (without the 2004 amendments).) That law thus retroactively placed any Russian or Soviet work under copyright in Russia where the author had died 1943 or later. (Plus a few special cases for authors who were veterans of World War II, for whom the copyright term was extended by four years, and for authors who were posthumously rehabilitated, for whom the copyright term began at the date of the rehabilitation, not at the death.) Russia joined the Berne Convention on March 13, 1995. On July 28, 2004, Russia modified its 1993 law by extending the copyright term from 50 to 70 years p.m.a, but only for works that were still copyrighted on that date. See the Russian law of July 28, 2004 (in Russian). That means that any work whose 50-year copyright term from the 1993 law had expired by July 28, 2004 is in the public domain in Russia. In other words: Soviet works of authors who had died before January 1, 1954 are in the public domain in Russia, if the work had been published during the author's lifetime. (However, note that works that are first published after the author's death are copyrighted until 70 years after the initial publication!) It's January 1 and not July 28 because copyrights expire at the end of the year, see paragraph 27(6) of the Russian copyright law from 1993 (untouched by the law of 2004), and thus works of authors who died between January 1 and July 27, 1954 were still copyrighted in Russia on July 28, 2004. For Soviet works that were published anonymously or were published posthumously, or where an artificial person (a corporation or some such) held the copyright, the rule is that they are in the public domain in Russia if they were published before January 1, 1954. See also the current Russian copyright law (1993 version with the changes from 2004 incorporated), in particular page 18 (of 37). So much for Russia itself, but what about the rest of the world?
4. When the USSR was dissolved, all its successor states (the CIS states) were considered the legal successors of the USSR in terms of copyright and were retroactively considered members of the UCC with an adherence date of May 27, 1973. See Circular 38a from the U.S. Copyright Office, at the end. Now what does that mean? Since I didn't know, I bugged Jean Baptiste Soufron about it. Soufron is a lawyer and the specialist of the Wikimedia Foundation for international copyright issues. According to him, it simply means that since all these states are successors of the USSR, a work published in the Soviet Union must be considered simultaneously published in all these countries! It is therefore not sufficient to just consider Russian law, instead one has to look at all the laws of all the CIS states to determine the copyright status of a Soviet work! A work would be only PD outside the former USSR if it was PD in all CIS states.
5. Georgia, one of these CIS states, has passed in 1999 a retroactive copyright law] with a copyright term of 70 years p.m.a. Thus, any Soviet work whose author died 1936 or later is (as of this writing) copyrighted in Georgia.
6. Note that it is pretty irrelevant whether a work was published with or without copyright notice. The U.S., for instance, has automatically and retroactively put all foreign works that formerly were not copyrighted in the U.S. due to failure to comply with the U.S. formalities (such as a coypright notice) under copyright again by the TRIPS agreement which resulted in 17 USC 104A, i.e. paragraph 104A of the U.S. copyright law, if the work was still copyrighted in its country of origin on January 1, 1996. In the case of a work published simultaneously, the work must have been out of copyright in all its countries of origin to avoid that automatic copyright restoration. If restored, the copyright in the U.S. for such works published 1923 or later runs for 95 years since the first publication if published before 1978 (i.e., at least until 1923 95 = 2018) and until 70 years p.m.a. if published 1978 or later. See e.g. Peter Hirtle's chart. It's not entirely clear to me how these rules would interact with the retroactive legislation of Georgia.
7. The EU has no corresponding legislation, but it does follow the rule of the shorter term for non-EU countries. However, due to the simultaneous publication and the Georgian law, I think the EU would also follow the 70 years p.m.a. rule for Soviet works.

In view of all this, the only workable rule for Wikipedia that I see would be to apply 70 years p.m.a. also to Soviet works. The retroactivity of the Georgian law (and also of the Russian law of 1993) makes any deliberations based on historic short Soviet copyright terms (for photographs, apparently only three to five years from publication until 1962; see User:Ajvol's statement) moot.

In any case, the current wording of the template is completely wrong. Lupo 08:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: Just in case sombody wonders: the copyright situation in the Ukraine is basically the same as in Russia, except that the Ukraine extended its copyright term from 50 to 70 years already in 2001. See the Ukrainian copyright law of 2001. Lupo 08:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

P.P.S.: Incidentally, the Russian Wikipedia uses July 28, 1954 as the cutoff date. That is nearly correct for Russia (and Russia only), but should be corrected to January 1, 1954. It also should take care of the issue of works published posthumously after that date: these are still copyrighted even in Russia, even if the author died before 1954! But please note that Commons:Lizenzen#Sowjetunion (bis 1991) claims that such works were PD worldwide. That's nonsense and should be corrected, too. The January 1, 1954 date applies only to Russia. Lupo 08:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

In other words, the correct rule within Russia itself would be "(published before January 1, 1954) AND (anonymous OR corporate ownership OR author died before January 1, 1954)", and this still ignores veterans and rehabilitations. Lupo 09:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

P.P.P.S.: Resolving this issue (one way or another) is rapidly becoming more urgent. The wrong "pre-1973" rule is spreading; it has been recently introduced at cs:Šablona:PD-USSR in the Czech Wikipedia. Lupo 08:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Deleting all the images that are affected at once may not be the most effective solution. I suggest a new template should be written that is correct, then each image reviewed individually if it matches those criterias and can have its template "updated"; those that obviously won't match the criteria can be listed for deletion. Those that are uncertain we will leave be for the time being. Hopefully, we will eventually work our way through all images.

File:Poster01.jpg

Image:Poster01.jpg -- free or not?

• / Fred Chess 19:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  Fred, a "correct" template in my opinion would have to say "follow the 70 years p.m.a. rule for Soviet images". That means that most images in this category would probably face deletion. (Except those published before 1923?) I don't understand why you want to keep the "uncertain" ones: that's not what we usually do. Lupo 07:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

As for me, I wouldn't be happy if we'll decide to deleate PD-Soviet pictures. Firstly, beacause I've uloaded proboably a couple of hundreds of such images, and nobody likes to see his work to be destroyed. I'm also opposer of modern copyrighnt system. For me, it's just rediculous: will author of the black and white photo from Soviet newspaper, published in fifties, be really hurt (financial and moral) becuase we publish his picture here? I really doubt it.

Neverthenless, I'm also against any copyvio (even faiuse). My point is easy: by enforsing copyright law we'll made clear to people how ridiculous it just is, so they hopefully will think about it (and also do something, like publishing their works under Creative Commons).

So, my conclusion: if Soviet-PD will be considered copyvio, I'll support deletion of such images (with GREAT pain in my heart). But revision process should be taken serouosly. A lot of imeges that are really Public Domain, also in Russia, are tagreted as PD_Soviet now. I've even seen this tag on images created before Russian revolution! Kneiphof 18:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the question is not whether one likes copyright legislation. Lupo 07:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I regurously oppose this and will notify the whole Russian society of wikipedia about this proposal! These images are available anywhere in Russia. Generally speaking copyright paranoya does not exist in an average Russian person. I mean any work that I make I would absoloutely not mind to be altered or revised. Soviet propaganda posters can be found in so many Russian and western literature that it makes this talk rediculous. LET I REMIND commons wiki enforcers that this user has attempted to delete this tag at en:wiki and FAILED MISERABLY. As he is not Russian and I take it never been to Russia or holds a knowledge of Russian code of laws I do not even understand why is he bothering about copyrights of other countries. This is rediculous, and I have uploaded countless of images with this tag and continue to do so, and if they are deleted will re-upload them if need to (regardless of this discussion). I'll add that not in a thousand years will anyone from Russia persecute wikipedia. --Kuban kazak 15:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I have given a rule for use within Russia above. But Russia is not the world, you know, and most of these images seem in fact to be copyrighted elsewhere as is appears that they must be considered simultaneously published in all CIS states. (And I would prefer it if you could discuss the matter rationally and without personal attacks. Thank you.) Lupo 16:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

And world has no laws for your information. As for images, then this is an international encyclipedia, and there is such a thing as ru:wiki, now you do realise that if there is ever a vote then the whole of ex-CIS wiki users are going to be against you. Also as you are in the states I think I remember that there is quote from court system "the defendent is innocent until proven guilty". Well until you can 100% prove that those images must be deleted, they remain. Personally you are wasting your time, and I will make your life more miserable by encouraging other wikis to adopt this tag if you continue to pursue this silly crusade. --Kuban kazak 16:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Lupo, it would be very benefitial if you wrote a new template, outlining the true criterias. Just write it as {{PD-Soviet-revised}} or whatever. / Fred Chess 17:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Fred, which rules? The one applicable within Russia don't apply outside of Russia. Outside of Russia I think we must apply the 70 years p.m.a. rule as is appears that Soviet works must be considered simultaneously published in all CIS states. Lupo 18:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

How about this on the template: As the Russian, Ukrainian, Armenian, Azerbaijani...communities have provided so much of their addition to wikipedia and commons in all languages it is fair to assume that regardless of US laws, as this is an international encyclopdeadia, the wikimedia does not see any work published before 23 March 1973 as copyrighted and is thus in Public Domain in Russia. As the Russian wikipedians mostly originate in Russia (the biggest country in the world) they dictate the rules of using vintage Soviet photographs. Moreover Russia is the direct successor to the USSR, hence its laws go ahead of other CIS ones particulary for images published by prints in the RSFSR. I think it would be better than having a splinter such you Lupo attacking the template. --Kuban kazak 18:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

1 Kneiphof 21:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What does the geographical size of Russia have to do with this? (some kind of joke?) en:User:Heqs 10:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

In that case I am reverting the template notice. Also Lupo, who is an admin in English wikipedia has stirred up an avalanche on him. Kneiphof, you might find this intersting. As for the template, I am reverting to its original format. I really had enough direct insults from a person abusing his admin power (I am going to have a full RfC/Admin and even arbcom if necessary for such actions). My only advice to Lupo to save face here is to stop being so concerned about images that he does not even use and return to writing articles, that way there is mutual benefit from both of us. --Kuban kazak 23:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

leave the pictures, there's pactically no way the russian gov will give the artists their money

At first I'm not a lawyer so I'll accept a decision which will be made by people who know copyright law better then me.

I think every image should be reviewed before deletion. I saw several cases when this template was abused: cosmonaut photos with mission happened after 1973 badges, photo of Brezhnev with awards received in 1978 and so on.

Question with stamps could be reviewed separately: may be stamps are in PD.

Even if decision to delete such images will be made, I think will be good idea to preserve images somewhere on Wikimedia servers. I uploaded scans from several books, but I don't sure that I'll able to rescan images or re-upload them, when they'll become PD. I think I have right to back-up copy by copyrights law, and these images could be displayed as fair use for a while.

14:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on en-wiki

Please check the discussion on en:Template_talk:PD-USSR#IMHO_we_are_inventing_non-existent_problem

RfC on en-wiki

Lupo's actions and vigilantism has prompted us to start an RfC against him and would like your help to endorse it. --Kuban kazak 13:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, go take a look at this thing initiated by this revert warrior: it's worth it. What an absolutely ridiculous circus! Lupo 06:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I fully give support to Lupo. We do not need wishful thinking --Historiograf 19:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Russia, Soviet

I will now suggest that the 1973 date is OK for works published by the Soviet government, or produced by someone is service of the Soviet government. I find it unlikely that this will ever generate a problem.

This would for example include the image above.

Comments? Fred Chess 14:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This is wrong. See above. Even if you ignore all the complications arising from the "simultaneous publication" and thus the Georgian law and only look at the Russian law, this is wrong. I won't go through the gory details again. Lupo 15:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well if you are such an expert in Russian law then explain this from talk:Alex Bakharev on en:wiki, I wont bother translating (as your expertise makes me assume you are a natural speaker), on the contrary I might as well start talking exclussively in Russian to you.

Here it is:

Привет Алекс. Я просмотрел одну ссылку, которую дал(а) Lupo. Retroactivity_Report_Russia.doc [1] и на русском [2]. Обратил внимание на следующие слова: 13 марта 1995 г. Россия присоединилась к Бернской конвенции. ... Однако действие обратной силы было ограничено, так как, присоединяясь к Бернской конвенции, Российская Федерация сделала оговорку о том, что «действие Бернской конвенции…не распространяется на произведения, которые на дату вступления этой конвенции в силу для РФ уже являются на ее территории общественным достоянием». ... существование вышеуказанной оговорки означает, что произведения стран-участников Бернской конвенции, созданные до вступления в силу этой конвенции в РФ (13 марта 1995 г.), не подлежат защите. Это правило, однако, не применяется к произведениям, которые были созданы после 27 мая 1973 г. в странах, подписавших также Всемирную конвенцию ... Далее приводится мнение этой частной юридеской компании, что РФ не имела законного права делать такую оговорку в связи по следующим причинам ... И наконец вывод экспертов компании Таким образом, сделанная РФ оговорка при присоединении к Бернской конвенции должна быть отменена. Более того, ее существование негативно влияет на защиту авторского права российских авторов за рубежом, и Россия, как один из ведущих «экспортеров» интеллектуальной собственности, теряет значительное количество денежных средств в связи с невыплатой платежей ее авторам и неуплатой налогов. Полагаю, что фраза ее существование негативно влияет на защиту авторского права российских авторов за рубежом говорит о каких-то существующих прецендентах того, что дата 27 мая 1973 г до сих пор является неким рубежем для авторских прав на советские работы. Далее там еще речь идет Всемирной Конвенции, которая не имеет обратной силы и опять же в ней рубеж 27 мая 1973 г и т.д. Т.о. я полагаю, что эта статья может быть основанием для перевединие дискуссии в конструктивное русло, чтобы показать, что претензии Lupo безосновательны (во всяком случае до тех пор, пока Россия не отменила эту поправку) --Yakudza 10:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

So do explain it in detail. --Kuban kazak 01:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You forgot a "please" in there, you very civilized person. (SCNR) Lupo 08:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. As I understand it, this again is about the copyright on foreign works within Russia or the Soviet Union and thus entirely irrelevant. (While I do believe that since the Russian law of 2004 said 1973 rule for foreign works within Russia doesn't exist anymore, I won't press that point. It is irrelevant.) We are talking about the copyright of Soviet works outside of the USSR! And such works are copyrighted in Russia if they were published 1954 or later, or the author died or was rehabilitated 1954 or later (make that 1950 for veterans of WWII). Outside of Russia, the only workable rule that I see is "70 years p.m.a." due to the "simultaneous publication" Soufron had pointed out. Lupo 08:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yakudza also makes mention of the Russian reservation when they joined the Berne Convention (see [3], and point 2 in the extended reasoning above). Again, this is something that relates to the copyright on foreign works within Russia . It did not apply to Soviet or Russian works, neither in Russia nor anywhere else. Lupo 08:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I should be more precise here. It did apply also to Soviet and Russian works, but for such works there was no "pre 1973 rule" in Russia, and for such works the Russian reservation is identical to article 18 of the Berne Convention anyway, which states that the convention applies only to works whose copyright has not yet expired in the country of origin when that country of origin joins the Berne Convention. The contentious interpretation was about foreign works, precisely because Russia claimed that its proviso applied also to such works and thus exempted foreign works published before 1973 in the USSR and that such works would therefore continue to be copyright-free in Russia. And that was changed by the Russian law of 2004. Lupo 09:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Many lawyers consider that law 2004 does not canceal the russian adjustment and "pre 1973" work is copyright-free in Russia at this moment. See [4] Автор статьи принимала участие в конференции на тему "Изменения в Законе "Об авторском праве и смежных правах", проходившей в Российском государственном институте интеллектуальной собственности, которую проводил профессор Гаврилов Э.П. Э.П. Гаврилов очень убедительно изложил свою позицию о том, что нормы первого абзаца п. 4 ст. 5 Закона 2004 г. не отменяют действия заявления, сделанного Российской Федерацией при вступлении в Бернскую конвенцию. and one more quoting ... произведения иностранных авторов, которые не охранялись на территории Российской Федерации до вступления в Бернскую конвенцию (13.03.1995), не должны охраняться и после принятия Закона 2004 г.' --Yakudza 17:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

All right. We really should take this discussion about the copyright status of foreign works within Russia elsewhere. As I said, I won't press this point, as it is rather irrelevant for the discussion here, which is about the copyright on Soviet works. To bystanders who can't read Russian: the website Yakudza quotes reports about one professor Gavrilov who defends the opinion that the 2004 law did not restore copyrights on pre-1973 foreign works within Russia. The link, however, also points to other Russian lawyers named Bliznets, Zakharov, and Khokhlov (in a part immediately following Yakudza's quote; please excuse my bad transliteration) who dispute that. Apparently even the Russian legal specialists disagree whether or not pre-1973 foreign works are copyrighted now in Russia... Lupo 18:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's the original text following Yakudza's first quote:Также считаю необходимым отметить, что наряду с вышеобозначенной позицией, существует и другая точка зрения в отношении положений, указанных в первом абзаце п. 4 ст. 5 Закона 2004 г. Так, в частности, на страницах журнала "Интеллектуальная собственность" (№ 10, 2004 г.) в статье "Анализ изменений к Закону РФ "Об авторском праве и смежных правах" (авторы И. Близнец, Б. Захаров, И. Хохлов) изложена другая позиция. Авторы указанной статьи считают, что с принятием нормы, изложенной в первом абзаце п. 4 ст. 5 Закона 2004 г., "…наконец-то устранена "неправильная" оговорка, которая была сделана Российской Федерацией при присоединении к Бернской конвенции об охране литературных и художественных произведений и которая вызывала споры и непонимание в научной среде, как в России, так и за рубежом".

В то время как Э.П. Гаврилов на страницах журнала "Патенты и лицензии" (№10, 2004 г.) в статье "Что изменилось в Законе "Об авторском праве и смежных правах" говорит о том, что заявление, сделанное Россией при вступлении в Бернскую конвенцию "…было доведено Секретариатом ВОИС до сведения всех государств - членов Бернской конвенции в оповещении о присоединении к ней России. Заявление является толкованием текста Конвенции и не является оговоркой к ней (как известно, никакие оговорки при присоединении к Конвенции не допускаются). Оно сохраняет свою силу и после вступления в действие Закона 2004 г. Иными словами, нормы первого абзаца п. 4 ст. 5 Закона не отменяют действие этого заявления". — Russian Association of Book Publishers (the link Yakudza gave). Lupo 18:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: keeping in mind that this is off-topic as it pertains only to the copyright within Russia on foreign works, the article about Nabokov vs. Nezavisimaya Gazeta (in English) from the Russian St. Petersburg Times highlights this controversy very well. It might be interesting to know how that lawsuit turned out. Lupo 11:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

In view of the discussion with Yakudza just above, who kindly provided this link to the website of the Russian Association of Book Publishers, I'd be even more interested to learn more about this Nabokov case. Lupo 18:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

"No one will ever sue us"

This argument is completely irrelevant. We can't tag images as public domain if they are not, and we can't use unfree images if they are not. While it is probably true that Wikimedia won't get sued, we are providing images that are libre not gratis - this is one of the founding principles of the Wikimedia Foundation. If someone used one of these image for a multi-million dollar advertising campaign (as we are telling them they are allowed to do), then the estate of the original author may very well sue. This is not copyright paranoia, this is just what Wikimedia Commons is. ed g2s • talk 12:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The original author is long dead, all of these images are in mass use inside Russia. Equievelent to Public Domain. And yes NOBODY will sue, we are not cruel and greedy bastards, but polite and civilised (unlike some countries). --Kuban kazak 01:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The original author of what? As an aside, I thought we had established that while many of these images were indeed widely used in Russia or the Soviet Union, this was due to the very broad "fair use"-like provisions in the old Soviet copyright law of 1961 and not because they had been copyright-free. More to the point, I agree with ed g2s's statement above. (And completely aside from all legal considerations, it's also a matter of being an encyclopedia and thus striving to be correct and not to spread misinformation. We correct errors we find in our articles, too, don't we?) Lupo 09:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

But who owns the copyright of these governmental Soviet images? If you allow sign off your rights to a work, as they did in the Soviet Union, why would they still have them? Nobody is claiming that US-Gov images should adhere under the 70 p.m.a. date, and so I must continue to argue in favour of keeping all works published by, or under contract of, the Soviet government. (Such as the poster that is depicted in the top section)

When it comes to works that are not published by, or under contract of, the Soviet government, for example a work of literature or art by known people such as This painting by Pavel Korin, I doubt they would be public domain worldwide, and would argue in favour of imminent deletion.

Do the Russian people, or rather those who argued strongly in favour of keeping this template, agree with this reasoning? / Fred Chess 18:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You are talking about works where an artificial person is the copyright holder; also known as works of "coprorate authorship". The "artificial person" in the case you write about would be the Soviet or Russian government. Under Soviet law, such works were under perpetual copyright. With the Russian copyright law of 1993, that was changed and reduced retroactively to 50 years since publication. (That's quite usual, actually. In many countries that do know the concept of "corporate authorship", the "X years p.m.a." rule means "X years since publication for works of corporate authorship". But note that there are countries that do not even know the concept at all but rather always define the human individual(s) who created a work as the copyright holder.) So, ignoring the "simultaneous publication" bit, the situation would be as follows: in 1993, all works of corporate authorship published 1943 or later remained copyrighted in Russia. In 1995, Russia joined the Berne Convention, and thus any Soviet/Russian works of corporate authorship published 1945 or later (1995 - 50) became copyrighted in other Berne Convention countries, too. The U.S., the TRIPS agreement has the effect of making such works copyrighted too, the relevant date concerning Russia and Soviet works is January 1, 1996. Thus any Russian or Soviet works of corporate authorship published after 1945 are copyrighted in the U.S., too. And if you then consider the "simultaneous publication" bit, the situation becomes even hairier. I think arguing to keep all works where the Soviet government owned the copyrights is wishful thinking; the Russian government of today is the copyright holder. If you think otherwise, prove it with relevant references. Lupo 15:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC) (P.S.: The U.S. government is a highly special case. Most governments in the world can and do hold copyrights on their works. The comparison is badly flawed.)

Kazak, what are you talking about? Images being used everywhere isn't proof of the fact that they are in the public domain. Also, the opinion of the "russian community", or any community at all for that matter, has nothing to do with the effect of the law. The majority of the American community thinks that the speed limit of 55 mph on most highways is too low. So what? Does that give everyone permission to ignore the speed limit? No. Also, just because no one will sue isn't a reason to break the law. So you're telling me, if you knew that no one will sue you for killing people on the street, you'll go and kill them? Stop being ridiculous! lensovet 19:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting case, but

before desputing farer we should wait for several court decisions concerning this matter. I bet, there will be none for next 20 years. All this comes up with Disney and McDonalds, they are interested. Don't forget your lausy PD-US-Gov (etc.) are, regarding to the berne convention, copyrighted all over the world. You may not even change them. Want to delete them too? -- 80.145.16.100 10:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"Public domain" does not mean {{It's a rip-off but the uploader thinks he and Wikipedia can get away with it}}. And this discussion is not about PD-USGov. Lupo 19:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Your have a general problems understanding laws

Laws can , also often tried, never backdate. Some who does a crime can only be hold resonsible for laws at the time on the crime took place and the same it with other laws like copyright lwas. Taht is like braking contracts. So you are all wrong with your claims.

You may not like it (and neither do I!), but unfortunately laws can be retroactive. The URAA in the U.S. is such an example, as is the restoration of copyrights on WWII-era photographs in Germany. The Russian copyright law of 1993 is another example. Lupo 18:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Laws can not be retroactive. I don't how mant times it should be repeated, but if it will be of any help I will repeat it again- there is no copyright for pre-73 Soviet works. They are public-domain. I personally don't give a darn about copyrights to start with, but in this case there is no copyright anyway. End of the story. I know that those who has brought the issue this far despite all the given reasonings, will continue their stupid nitpiking. But to all others, I can give only one advise- disregard the copyright issue of the pre-73 Soviet works altoghether. Have a nice day. --72.60.179.223 21:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Back up your claims. Lupo 08:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

In copyright law, changes can be made that make works in the public domain once again protected by copyright, eg. works by author Selma Lagerlöf who was public domain 1990-1996 but protected again after a change in the law 1996. Thuresson 13:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, in this example the "laws cannot be retroactive" rule will mean that if you published the photos between 1990 and 1996 anywhere, they can't sue you later for that ... but if you published them after 1996, when the new law was under effect, you violated it. So in this case when law was changed in 1993 it'll probably mean that what was uploaded to wiki before 1993 can be kept there (umm ... in 1993 wiki wasn;t even here) and what was uploaded later can't ... --Bilboq 01:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you people are fighting too much because of a pic of a bomb exploding.

I agree with you, that the notion of public domain and copyrights are different in different parts of the world, which is why I am in favour of keeping the template for images -- unless they are artistical creations. Socialistic countries -- and former such -- have a different view of ownership, which I am respecting. Especially, I don't mind keeping simple photographs such as press photos. However, I have still not gotten a comment on works of art. What about works of Pavel Korin? I do think we might get sued for such creations. / Fred Chess 21:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think press photos were any less copyrighted than others? Lupo 08:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have now read up a little on your arguments, Lupo, as well as the references you've provided. First I should answer your question, which is that such photographs are not necessarily artistical creations in the same way as works of art or literature. I'm going to touch more on this subject below.

Ok, but lets continue -- I found some interesting arguments that show that this matter is not as simple as you make it seem, Lupo.

• "Some works (e.g., government publications) are not subject to copyright protection in Russia. " -- Michael Newcity. This could well apply to the Stalin poster I refered to above.
• It is true that there is still some legal uncertainty as to whether works that had expired in the country of origin and then were "re-protected" there, are protected by the retroactive provisions of the Berne Convention and TRIPS. To my knowledge, there is no case law on this yet internationally. -- Janice Pilch. Janice gives the advice to be cautious (and I must stress that she only refers to material of which copyright had at some time expired in the Soviet). If this has been a debate about one or two images, then I could say "let's be safe and delete them", but the current situation shows there are many images and as a practical solution, I think we should first and foremost delete the images that are clearly copyright violations and wait with those that are still unclear.
• "Bakhtin died in 1975, thus his works never fell into the public domain in the USSR or Russian Federation. They were protected in the Soviet Union throughout his life, and are still protected in the Russian Federation. This is because the 1928 copyright law of the USSR established a term for written works as life of the author plus 15 years; in 1973 that was extended to life plus 25 years." Janice Pilch. So this is the copyright for written work, which implies there are different copyright terms for works of arts or photographs.

So to conclude, the pre-1973 argument is not valid, but there is still uncertainty as to which copyright terms applies, which in turn means that I won't start to delete the bulk of images any time soon.

However, I still would urge the deletion of artistical works such as the paintings by Pavel Korin. Such works are protected in all the Western World and it would be unreasonable to assume that a Russian painter would not hold copyright of those paintings he produced before 1973. Again, there is no precedent about this that I know of so I'll wait for now, but I strongly suspect that those images will be deleted in the future.

Fred Chess 00:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You wrote So to conclude, the pre-1973 argument is not valid, but there is still uncertainty as to which copyright terms applies. Great that you finally see that! And the reason to keep an obviously wrong tag is...? I'm not calling for summarily deleting the images using this tag. I want this tag corrected, and images using it must be reevaluated to see under which provisions we can keep them. I have made a proposal on how to correct the tag (which would amount to applying "70 years p.m.a."), and explained how to fix the tag. Lupo 07:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

As for the government publications: I would be very careful with this. It generally applies to official publications such as laws, edicts of government, and the like. See §8 of the current copyright law: exempt from copyright are "official documents (laws, judicial decisions, other legislative, administrative and judicial texts), and their official translations; state symbols and marks (flags, emblems, orders, banknotes and other state symbols and marks); works of folk art; information reports of events and facts." I have no idea what the last item ("information reports of events and facts") refers to; somehow I truly doubt that news reporting was exempt from copyright... in any case, I fail to see how the first item ("official documents") could be construed to cover posters. Lupo 07:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, in view of Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc., a copyright case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York in 1998 in favour of Itar-Tass, I am pretty confident that "information reports of events and facts" does not cover news reporting. Lupo 08:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between ex post facto and retrospective law. "Every ex post facto law must necessarily be retrospective; but every retrospective law is not an ex post facto law." (Justice Chase in the famous case of Calder v. Bull 1798). If we start from the premise that US courts will decide this (Wikipedia servers being in the US) the question is whether US courts could qualify the laws made by the successor states to the Soviet Union as ex post facto. This is not about Russia and Georgia having the full right to enact laws (even retrospective) on their territory - since Justice Chase also did argue that the Legislature of Connecticut had every right to enact their own legislation, but about the fact that ex post facto law is so "manifestly unjust and oppressive" that it cannot be enforced in the US (see article 1 of the US constitution, section 9 and 10). Justice Chase saw four grounds to call laws ex post facto:

1) the law "makes an action, done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action"

2) the law "aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed"

3) the law "inflicts greater punishment"

4) the law "alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender"

Obviously 1 and 3 do not apply in the PD Soviet case. 2 is dubious, but could refer to those instances where some of this PD Soviet material was already uploaded to Wikipedia before the last Russian law. But 4 is an interesting point. Lupo himself has been claiming all along that since after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, all successor states have enacted different legislation which also applies to Soviet times, the copyright issue must be settled with all the successor states. I think that under these circumstances, any lawyer will try to invoke point 4: trying to convict the "offender" has become much easier, and it has become more difficult, perhaps even impossible for the person who wants to upload images without infringing the law, to stay within the law.

Of course, court proceedings against Wikipedia need not be criminal, they could be started as a civil case by a claimant. Note by the way that because the legislation in the successor states is not the same, the claimants will probably be multiple: one person claiming on the basis of Georgian law, one person claiming on the basis of Russian law, and so on. That will make it hard on the claimants too. And yes, some of the people involved who may now claim actually relinquished their copyright by contract. Judge Chase also referred to this, by quoting a ... British court case: "In 2nd Lord Raymond 1352, Raymond, Justice, called the stat. 7 Geo. 1st. stat. 2 par 8, about registering Contracts for South Sea Stock, an ex post facto law; because it affected Contracts made before the statute." However, he ruled on that "In the present case, there is no fact done by Bull and wife Plaintiffs in Error, that is in any manner affected by the law or resolution of Connecticut: It does not concern, or relate to, any act done by them." I am sure this is not the case with these PD Soviet images, as basically we can all find out who uploaded them and what they stated at the time.

So, basically, I think that dismissing the argument "laws cannot be retroactive" (which is indeed a bit too simple an argument) with the phrase "copyright laws are always retroactive" is a bit too simple an argument as well. en:User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--Pan Gerwazy 08:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Who said "copyright laws are always retroactive"? I don't think I ever said that. I said they could be, and gave some examples. (And more precisely, I meant that they could have retroactive effects.) I won't speculate about what courts might or might not decide. I just note that the Uruguay Rounds Agreement Act (URAA) in the U.S. itself (it implements the copyright provisions of TRIPS) retroactively restored copyrights in the U.S., and even provided the mechanism of filing a "Notice of Intent to Enforce" (NIE) such restored copyrights against continued use of restored items by users who had been using them (rightfully!) without license before the URAA. [5] (See the second-but-last paragraph of en:WP:PD#World War II images for some more external links.) Lupo 09:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

And anyway, I have the impression this whole ex post facto thing is a red herring. When I talk about a "retroactive copyright law", I mean a law that places works that were in the public domain under the previous legislation under copyright again. It does not criminalize acts that were legal under the old law. However, it may criminalize continued use of works that have become copyrighted again. (That's exactly the case with the URAA I mentioned above.) Consider an example: a publisher published a work that was out of copyright under the old legislation. Then new legislation is enacted, placing the work under copyright again. Selling the editions of the book printed before the new legislation became effective remains lawful; but printing a new edition and selling that would be a copyright violation. At least that's how I understand this matter. For us and this case about Soviet works, this would mean that if a Soviet work that was out of copyright before the 1993 law was enacted had been uploaded to Wikipedia before 1993, our use of that work might be ok. (Or maybe 1996, as that was the year the URAA restored copyright on such works in the U.S.) Unless you consider Wikipedia to be published continually... But that discussion is moot anyway, since Wikipedia wasn't around in the 1990s. Our uses all date to 2001 or later. Lupo 19:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm right with Lupo. I've not seen any even vaguely satisfactory legal argument presented here that would suggest he is wrong. At present, is the transition process to a correct template actually underway? TheGrappler 01:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not saying that Lupo is wrong, but I don't agree with his suggested method of solving this problem. I do admit that my POV is that I don't want to delete images if it isn't necessary -- this is just a pragmatic POV, because deleting thousands of images used on ten thousands of articles takes time, and it is stupid if it turns out it wasn't required.

Here are some disputed topics: I find it (a) unlikely that the copyright laws of Georgia could actually be applied to people and creations from current-day cities of Russia (Lupo wants to apply 70 years p.m.a. for all Soviet images, based on the copyright of Georgia.). I am also (b) disputing what "government creations" refers to -- I consider it to be a wide denomination of material such as Soviet posters. And (c), I am trying to argue that the Soviet way of looking at things was fundamentally different from the Western; if material is Russia--formerly Soviet-- used as (what we know as) "fair use" to an extent that makes it comparable to (what we call) public domain then I do consider the two comprable, in lack of precedents of otherwise.

The case en:Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc. is interesting and shows that U.S. has in effect restored its copyrights. But I am still mainly concerned about the extent of copyrights in Old Soviet.

Since there are still so many open questions for me, there is still no transitional template. And since the suggestions of Lupo are to apply 70 p.m.a. , there is no need for a transitional template. Yet, one was attempted, at {{PD-Soviet-revised}}. I do not agree with it.

Fred Chess 03:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

On (a), if you have doubts about it, take it up with Soufron. I won't second-guess him. But even if he should have been mistaken about the "simultaneous publication" bit (which is the reason why we have to consider Georgian law at all), or if I should have made a mistake and Georgian law was not applicable, 70 years p.m.a. is still a pretty close and useful approximation as I had argued long ago on Template talk:PD-Soviet-revised. Regarding (b), broad interpretations of laws are generally a very bad idea unless you can back them up by a reputed legal commentary or actual court decisions. Reading up on how similar provisions are interpreted in other countries may also give you an idea why I said we should interprete that narrowly. I strongly disagree with your point (c): just because a work is widely used it doesn't become PD, and we shouldn't be calling it PD. We'd be lying—to ourselves, to our readers, and to our content reusers. Finally, your closing remarks sound as if you regretted having prompted me to attempt to write that tag. Lupo 19:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

On (a) please remember that law is stupid and doesn't always do what you want it to do. "It's got nothing to do with Georgia, how can it be copyrighted there?" is utterly common sense but legally it's nonsense. It was (legally speaking) simultaneously published in Georgia so Georgian copyright law applies, period. An ass, I'm afraid, but a legal one. I suspect the answer to (b) is quite complicated, do you think it be worth having a distinct template to cover Soviet government works if they have a different copyright status to other things published in the USSR? And as for (c), again, common sense is not the law. Just because the USSR had a very wide version of fair use does not mean that it is impossible for there to be a coyright on material released at that time. A wider question: what about works published in Imperial Russia before 1917 (but not in the United States pre-1923)? Do they come under the 70 years pma condition because of being copublished in Georgia, or is only Russian copyright law relevant? TheGrappler 11:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Replacing templates

I hope that Lupo could create templates (with regard to the 1954 or what ever rule) that could replace this template. Then we could add a warning text to this template like: "The use of this template is depracated. Please use [[link|these other]] templates instead. Images uploaded after July Nth 2006 using this template may be speedily deleted." -Samulili 18:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

This might work as a temporary compromise solution to stop the spreading of a very disputed license, whose opposition, Pan Gerwazy and some other making a notable exception, is based on w:poisoning the well. -Samulili 18:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You may have noticed that on Fred's urging, I actually had written a replacement attempt. Within Russia, January 1, 1954 seems to be a useful cut-off date that could be used on the Russian Wikipedia. Outside, and for general use here on the commons and on the English Wikipedia, "70 years p.m.a" is the best I can come up with. Lupo 12:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I hadn't noticed that. It seems like good work. I just wonder if people are ready to agree on the compromise I proposed? -Samulili 19:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's fine with me, of course. Deprecating this tag is what I have been advocating all along. Lupo 06:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

And you think that just because it's fine with you, everybody believes you? Not hardly... -- Grafikm fr 01:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't make any assumptions about what I might or might not think. You're bound to be wrong more often than not, unless you could read my mind. Lupo 08:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

deletion request hint

I nominated some images with this template at Template:Deletion_requests#All_paintings_by_Pavel_Korin.

Fred Chess 00:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Space Program

What is the specific situation of images created by the Soviet space program? Are they public domain, like images created by NASA, or copyrighted with fair use, or completely restricted? 67.162.121.179 14:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright and de:WP

This template is incompatible with the german and austrian laws. All images with this template, which don't have annnother reason for PD or GNU-FDL, e.g. PD-old or PD-self, cannot be used on de:WP ! Augiasstallputzer 19:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest contacting the foundation. Use the mailinglist foundation-l

Fred Chess 21:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note that common located in USA. It is doesn't matter what german and austrian law thinking about. Do you gonna delete all sites around the world that breaking your laws? it's ridiculous. The sign has been removed. Elk Salmon 13:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You have a completely wrong view of the Commons. The Commons serves all Wikipedia projects, and possible illegal use must be pointed out.

Fred Chess 16:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Matter is physical location of servers. Nothing else. You won't delete and won't block access to Japanese sites, for example, from UK just because they breaks UK laws. Elk Salmon 13:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

There are also servers in europe, e.g. Nederlands . In addition, German law allows juristic fights agains US-Organisation, if they break German copyright. The USA are member of the most international contracts about copyright and therefore the content of that contracts belong to the US-law and the Wikimedia Foundation Inc. breaks american laws, if she accepts this copyright violations. Augiasstallputzer 14:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to repeat. It doesn't matter! You can delete all what you want from German servers, but posting links to servers that located in USA does not breaks German laws! Elk Salmon 10:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I have felt forced to protect this template. A highly used template should not be the subject of revert wars. The box warning about using this template on German Wikipedia must for the time be there, and as far as I know, it has consensus among most editors.

If you disagree, please discuss, not revert.

Fred Chess 16:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all. Admin Arnomane has vandalized the template, by abusing his admin power, and posted a message asking for deletion of all PD-Soviet pictures from the Common.

Second. The result of the discussion between of editors was TO KEEP! [6] But decision of such questions belongs to the foundation, where decision was made yet. Elk Salmon

@Elk Salmon: Sorry but you are wrong:

• The final decission is on 20. September. As it looks now they will be deleted. Mere "Keep" votes simply don't count. The same applies to mere "Delete" votes. This is Wikimedia Commons deletion policy since its very beginnings.
• I haven't vandalized anything. I told you in detail at my talk page. So please at least try to sort out your differences with me there and then you can complain at a more general page (Like Village pump) about me but not here.

Have fun, Arnomane 11:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The decision of editors was clearly TO KEEP. Your actions is abusing of admin power, calling people to delete images without wating of foundation decision (most probably there will be no decision from foundation). Elk Salmon 14:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't remember where this was a decision by the editors...a vote. It was clarified in the beginning that it was irrelevant how many editors "voted" on this. The discussion by active and involved editors also made it clear that these images violated our policy and therefore will have to be deleted or relicensed according to policy. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 16:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[7] Elk Salmon 01:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you not able or not willing to understand ? This is not a question of votes but of legality. That's why a proper legal advice from copyright lawyers is needed otherwise the usage of these images has to be stopped, these images have to be hidden from usage or to be deleted if no other applicacable license is found. --Denniss 18:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Schaut doch mal auf http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Ralf_Roletschek/sowjetische_Bilder - da gibts ne Erklärung. --Marcela 00:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

A concrete court case in the U.S.

I recommend people go look up the case Films by Jove, Inc. v. Berov, 154 F. Supp. 2d 432 (E.D.N.Y. 2001) and 250 F. Supp. 2d 432 (E.D.N.Y. 2003). This was a complicated case about a copyright infringement (committed in the U.S.) on Soviet cartoons. The case was about many different Soviet animated films published from 1936 to 1991. Some of these films were of Cheburashka, which is considered by many people in Russia a kind of national property; the childrens' books that served as the base for these films were written by Eduard Uspensky in 1966. In that case (154 F. Supp. 2nd at 448) the court clearly stated that these were "restored works", i.e. works that had their copyright in the U.S. restored under the URAA (17 USC 104A). See also the discussion of Tydniouk, A.: From Itar-TASS to Films by Jove: The Conflict of Laws Revolution in International Copyright, Brooklyn Journal of International Law 29(2), pp. 917ff. Here we have a concrete U.S. court case in which copyrights on pre-1973 Soviet works were upheld. Furthermore, one of the plaintiffs was Soyuzmultfilm Studios, a private successor of a former governmental enterprise that had the same name. So much for the effects of privatization... (The case was then complicated tremenduously, but the arguments revolved around who exactly owned that copyright: a third-party claimed that the plaintiffs (Films by Jove and Soyuzmultfilm Studios) were not the copyright owners and thus had no standing in the case. The court ultimately also confirmed that the plaintiffs were considered the copyright owners and thus had standing.) Lupo 07:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Cheburashka is like Mickey

Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc.: The court defined that the plaintiffs' rights were to be determined by Russian law, but the infringement had to be judged by U.S. law

This case isn't "ordinary": authors have substantial economic interest in Cheburashka, other images aren't automatically valuable.

I agree on precedent, but that's extreme case (a la Mickey mouse) of what we can expect in pre-1973 photos.

@Lupo: how many (how frequently) US citizens were sued over insignificant and old images? 128.68.86.34 05:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Retroactivity redux

May I point the interested readers also to the decision (in Russian) by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation from June 19, 2006. (Also available at the Supreme Court web site itself.) Point 34 clearly confirms that the 50-year copyright term defined in the Russian copyright law of 1993 (No. 5351-1) was retroactive and even restored the copyright on works on which the old 25-year copyright from the old Soviet code had elapsed! §3 of the Implementation Act (No. 5352-1) (in Russian) for the Russian Copyright law of 1993 had said so long ago, but not as clearly. Lupo 11:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the implementation act (No. 5352-1) is available in an English translation at the very bottom of the CIPR translation of the Russian copyright law (PDF, 372kB). Lupo 12:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Licencing

Important !

It's very important for the de:WP, that images, which licence changes from PD-Soviet to annother, correct one, like PD-Russia, are listed on a page, to re-insert them in de:WP.

Therefore, please add a link on User:Augiasstallputzer/Insert . Thank you. Augiasstallputzer 13:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It's correct in Russia, but fails outside (and in particular in the U.S.). See the talk page. If something like that were to be used, it should have a comment explaining under what conditions works might be PD in the U.S. (as I had explained elsewhere), and it completely ignores Soufron's "simultaneous publication" bit. Lupo 13:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Error

Someone spelled "immediately" wrong in the warning box below the template. --tomf688 (talk - email) 23:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

More than 1000 images here

I have found more than 1000 images here once claimed to be public domain outside the Soviet Union in good faith, but since this theory is unproven, there will be so many images to delete. It will take considerable time.--Jusjih 20:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Avoid Copyright Paranoia

I've been following this debate, which is quite amusing IMO. All I can say is: Avoid Copyright Paranoia. Torvindus 12:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Grammatical errors

{{Edit request}} Please change "soviet union" to "Soviet Union" (USSR is a specific noun) and "previous to" to "before" (to be clearer) at the sentence "Images published previous to 1973 in the soviet union are not public domain because". Also, there is a duplicate of "had" at the sentence "Russia had had a copyright law that placed Soviet/Russian works published after 1943 (or 1939 for veterans of WWII) or where the author died later under copyright", please fix the error. Thanks, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 11:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Jarekt (talk) 12:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

{{Edit request}}

{{LangSwitch
 | lang = {{#if:{{{lang|}}}|{{{lang}}}|{{int:Lang}}}}
 | en = PD-Soviet is incompatible with the [[Commons:Licensing|copyright policy of Wikimedia Commons]] that requires [[Commons:Project scope|freely licensed images only]]. Images published before 1973 in the Soviet Union are not public domain because:
* Russia joined the Berne Convention on [http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=15 May 13, 1995]: Since 1993, Russia had a copyright law that placed Soviet/Russian works published after 1943 (or 1939 for veterans of WWII) or where the author died later under copyright. The Berne Convention very clearly states that any works protected in a joining country on the date it joins become protected in the other member countries. Thus a "pre-1973" rule on Soviet works outside Russia is invalid since 1995/1996, in the U.S. and also in other members of the Berne Convention.
* The [[:en:Supreme Court of the Russian Federation|Supreme Court of the Russian Federation]] from June 19, 2006. decided ([http://www.ictlaw.ru/wiki/article/Постановление Пленума Верховного Суда РФ 19 июня 2006 г.№15 «О вопросах, возникающих у судов при рассмотрении гражданских дел, связанных с применением законодательства об авторском праве и смежных правах» decision (in Russian)]) that the 50-year copyright term defined in the Russian copyright law of 1993 (No. 5351-1) ''was retroactive'' and ''even restored the copyright on works on which the old 25-year copyright from the old Soviet code had elapsed.''
* There was a legal case on that matter in the US: The case ''Films by Jove, Inc. v. Berov'', 154 F. Supp. 2nd (2nd Cir. 2001) and 250 F. Supp. 2nd 432 (2nd Cir. 2003). This was a complicated case about a copyright infringement (committed in the U.S.) on Soviet cartoons. The case was about many different Soviet animated films published from 1936 to 1991. Some of these films were of [[:en:Cheburashka|Cheburashka]], which is considered by many people in Russia a kind of national property; the childrens' books that served as the base for these films were written by [[:en:Eduard Uspensky|Eduard Uspensky]] in 1966. In that case (154 F. Supp. 2nd at 448) the court clearly stated that these were "restored works", i.e. works that had their copyright in the U.S. restored under the URAA (17 USC 104A). (see [https://web.archive.org/web/20070704065500/http://www.brooklaw.edu/students/journals/bjil/bjil29ii_tydniouk.pdf ''From ''Itar-TASS'' to ''Films by Jove'': The Conflict of Laws Revolution in International Copyright''])

For further details see [[Template talk:PD-Soviet]] and [[Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-Soviet]].
 | zh = PD-Soviet与[[Commons:Licensing/zh|维基共享资源的版权政策]]不兼容，该政策要求[[Commons:Project scope/zh|仅限自由许可的图像]]。1973年之前在苏联发布的图像不属于公共领域，因为：
* 俄罗斯自[http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=15 1995年5月13日]加入伯尔尼公约：自1993年以来，俄罗斯的版权法将苏联/俄罗斯1943年（或1939年，二战老兵）之后出版的作品，或者作者后来因版权而去世。伯尔尼公约非常明确地规定，任何在加入国受到保护的作品在加入之日起在其他成员国受到保护。因此，自1995/1996年以来，对俄罗斯境外苏联作品的“1973年前”规则在美国和伯尔尼公约的其他成员中均无效。
* [[:zh:俄罗斯联邦最高法院|俄罗斯联邦最高法院]]于2006年6月19日决定（[http://www.ictlaw.ru/wiki/article/П% D0�становление % D0�ленума Верхо% D0�ного Суда РФ 19% 20июня 2006 г.№15 «О в� �просах, возни кающих у судо� � при рассмотр ении гражданс ких дел, связа нных с примен� �нием законод� %B 0тельства об а% D0�торском прав% D0� и смежных пр% D0�вах» 决定（俄文）]）即1993年俄罗斯版权法（No.5351-1）''具有追溯力''并且''甚至恢复了旧苏联密码中25年版权已失效的作品的版权。''
* 在美国有一个关于此事的法律案件：案件''Films by Jove, Inc. v. Berov''，154F.補充。2nd (2nd Cir.2001) 和250F.Supp。第2條432（2003年第2輪）。这是一起关于侵犯苏联漫画版权（在美国犯下）的复杂案件。这个案例是关于1936年到1991年出版的许多不同的苏联动画电影。其中一些电影是[[:en:Cheburashka|切布拉什卡]]，在俄罗斯很多人认为这是一种国家财产；作为这些电影基础的儿童读物是由[[:en:Eduard Uspensky|爱德华·乌斯宾斯基]]于1966年编写的。在该案中（154F.Supp.2nd at 448），法院明确指出这些是“恢复的作品”，即根据URAA (17 USC 104A) 在美国恢复版权的作品。（参见[https://web.archive.org/web/20070704065500/http://www.brooklaw.edu/students/journals/bjil/bjil29ii_tydniouk.pdf ''从''Itar-TASS''到''Jove的电影''：国际版权革命中的法律冲突''])

有关更多详细信息，请参阅[[Template talk:PD-Soviet]]和[[Commons:Deletion Requests/Template:PD-Soviet]]。
}}

Chubit (talk) 07:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done 1989 (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

repair

{{Edit request}}

 | zh = PD-Soviet与[[Commons:Licensing/zh|维基共享资源的版权政策]]不兼容，该政策要求[[Commons:Project scope/zh|仅限自由许可的图像]]。1973年之前在苏联发布的图像不属于公共领域，因为：
* 俄罗斯自[http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=15 1995年5月13日]加入伯尔尼公约：自1993年以来，俄罗斯的版权法将苏联/俄罗斯1943年（或1939年，二战老兵）之后出版的作品，或者作者后来因版权而去世。伯尔尼公约非常明确地规定，任何在加入国受到保护的作品在加入之日起在其他成员国受到保护。因此，自1995/1996年以来，对俄罗斯境外苏联作品的“1973年前”规则在美国和伯尔尼公约的其他成员中均无效。
* [[:zh:俄罗斯联邦最高法院|俄罗斯联邦最高法院]]于2006年6月19日决定即1993年俄罗斯版权法（No.5351-1）''具有追溯力''并且''甚至恢复了旧苏联密码中25年版权已失效的作品的版权。''
* 在美国有一个关于此事的法律案件：案件''Films by Jove, Inc. v. Berov''，154 F. Supp. 2nd (2nd Cir. 2001) and 250 F. Supp. 2nd 432 (2nd Cir. 2003)。这是一起关于侵犯苏联漫画版权（在美国犯下）的复杂案件。这个案例是关于1936年到1991年出版的许多不同的苏联动画电影。其中一些电影是[[:en:Cheburashka|切布拉什卡]]，在俄罗斯很多人认为这是一种国家财产；作为这些电影基础的儿童读物是由[[:en:Eduard Uspensky|爱德华·乌斯宾斯基]]于1966年编写的。在该案中（154F.Supp.2nd at 448），法院明确指出这些是“恢复的作品”，即根据URAA (17 USC 104A) 在美国恢复版权的作品。（参见[https://web.archive.org/web/20070704065500/http://www.brooklaw.edu/students/journals/bjil/bjil29ii_tydniouk.pdf ''从''Itar-TASS''到''Jove的电影''：国际版权革命中的法律冲突''])

有关更多详细信息，请参阅[[Template talk:PD-Soviet]]和[[Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-Soviet]]。

Chubit (talk) 05:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Chubit: Please describe your changes. 1989 (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

URL has been 404 Chubit (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed 1989 (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

{{Editrequest}}

Please remove

<noinclude>{{distinguish|Template:PD-Soviet Russia-corporate authorship}}</noinclude>

as that template has been deleted. Thanks, Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they/ella/elle) 03:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)